Judge ALTONAGA quotes ERV reports in her ‘background’ summary.

In one comment somewhere, a writer imagined Jones Day presenting complicated and boring testimony to a jury, with their eyes glazing over. This is essentially thinking of one of the top legal firms in the world as being utterly incompetent. I rather doubt it!

That was not a criticism of Jones Day, so much as a slap against the notoriously short attention span of the american juror. A good example is: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit", which the OJ jury focused on instead of the volumes of technical details about DNA, blood splatter patterns, etc. Same could happen here. The jury system has always been a crap shoot, even when you have the best lawyers, which is why David French gave it such high odds of being settled out of court.

I do not believe the pressure was actually 0.0 bar. I think that is a lie.

I also think the boiler produced hot water, not steam. Now, BEFORE YOU SAY IT, let me reiterate that in HVAC terminology, a large tank that heats water is called a boiler, even though it does not actually boil the water.

Was it you who kept insisting that a boiler has to boil? Some people think they can redefine professional terminology to mean whatever the heck they want. How strange! Like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:

Quote

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

This is what the Judge said on page 4:Despite IH and IPH’s continued failure to secure an adequate testing facility, Rossi took it upon himself to locate and secure a location to conduct the Guaranteed Performance Test, as well as obtain the requisite regulatory approvals for the operation of the E-Cat Unit.

See, he obtained the necessary regulatory approvals according to the Judge.

See, he obtained the necessary regulatory approvals according to the Judge.

No, according to the judge, he said he obtained the necessary regulatory approvals. She did not agree that he did; she merely quoted him. Do you understand the difference? If I say, "Mr. Smith claims he is a werewolf" that does not mean I agree. It means I say he says that.

According to the government of the state of Florida, Rossi did not obtain approvals. Who are you going to believe? Rossi, or the government?

If Rossi did not get the permits as he claims in his suit, that will be easily proven as a blatant lie, and would greatly hurt his case going forward. I think it was David French who said in his review of Rossi's filing, that you just do not make stuff up in your suit that can not be proven. That is a big no-no, and if caught doing so (and you will be caught) you will pay a big price. It sounds like a sure fire way to lose the case out of hand

Keep in mind too, that IH signed off on the test, and they obviously have been very lawyered up since the beginning. Doubt they would have exposed themselves to some regulatory action by signing onto a rogue boiler operation.

Well, according to Alan Smith, IH is "trying to leak the ERV report", so maybe we do not have to wait and see for long. At this point Rossi has everything going his way, so little motivation for him to do so.

Being a werewolf is not illegal. rejected.wounding is criminal. accepted.being hairy is not illegal. rejectedeating someone else cheese is stealing, thus illegal. agreed

Good example. That is how it works. I do not like Wikipedia, but in this case they have a clear explanation with a similar example:

Quote

A "motion to dismiss" asks the court to decide that a claim, even if true as stated, is not one for which the law offers a legal remedy. As an example, a claim that the defendant failed to greet the plaintiff while passing the latter on the street, insofar as no legal duty to do so may exist, would be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim: the court must assume the truth of the factual allegations, but may hold that the claim states no cause of action under the applicable substantive law. A claim that has been presented after the statute of limitations has expired is also subject to dismissal. . . .

At this point Rossi has everything going his way, so little motivation for him to do so.

Not my reading of the situation in the slightest. What we've seen is that 4 out of 8 complaints were summarily dismissed, before the case has even gotten to trial. Now there is discovery and the likelihood of counterclaims. We must get much further before it will be clear that things are going Rossi's way.

Not my reading of the situation in the slightest. What we've seen is that 4 out of 8 complaints were summarily dismissed, before the case has even gotten to trial.

Eric,

This is all a matter of opinion of course. You may be right.

IMO, when you file a suit, your throw in the "kitchen sink" just to cover all angles. That is what I think Rossi did here. David French said within days of the filing that the patent claims were wrong on many counts. Even the judge in her response said the contract language clearly allowed IH much latitude to do what they wished with the IP. So the patent allegations were weak to begin with, and the fact they did not make the cut, was probably anticipated.

That is why my belief is that Rossi, and legal counsel probably feel pretty good having gotten what they did. Could be wrong though.

...the key in your interpretation is 'glorified'. In what respect none of us know for sure and we will just have to wait.

I meant glorified in Rossi's description-- not in fact. I am quite certain that Rossi's ecat has never done and will never do anything "glorified" in terms of energy from fusion/LENR. Of course, nobody knows "for sure" given we have no direct access to the "device". But every bit of credible evidence I have ever seen about Rossi's devices strongly indicates that they are nothing but electrical heaters with nothing whatever anomalous about them except Rossi's claims.

As soon as this gets to trial, in the unlikely possibility it is not withdrawn, Rossi will rapidly go crashing in flames. And his insufficiently critical/skeptical attorneys with him.

As soon as this gets to trial, in the unlikely possibility it is not withdrawn, Rossi will rapidly go crashing in flames. And his insufficiently critical/skeptical attorneys with him.

I know little about the law, but I do not see how this can hurt his attorneys. As long as they get paid, why should they care? I suppose they lose weak cases from time to time. As long as they are not covering up fraud or doing anything illegal they should be fine.

How can it be a boiler as the pressure in the system was 0.0 bar? There is no pressure vessel, a requirement for a boiler.

This was all discussed in depth a little while ago, and I went over the Florida regulations. Because it really doesn't matter, I have not gone back, I was unable to find if there was a clear regulatory requirement or not. As I recall, the issue was whether or not the site for the boiler was a place of public assembly, which is very broadly defined, and it is possible that the location would be that. However, the claim that the device is not a boiler is preposterous.

(1) “Boiler” means a closed vessel in which water or other liquid is heated, steam or vapor is generated, steam is superheated, or any combination of these functions is accomplished, under pressure or vacuum, for use external to itself, by the direct application of energy from the combustion of fuels or from electricity or solar energy. The term “boiler” includes fired units for heating or vaporizing liquids other than water where these units are separate from processing systems and are complete within themselves. The varieties of boilers are as follows:(a) “Power boiler” means a boiler in which steam or other vapor is generated at a pressure of more than 15 psig.(b) “High pressure, high temperature water boiler” means a water boiler operating at pressures exceeding 160 psig or temperatures exceeding 250 °F.(c) “Heating boiler” means a steam or vapor boiler operating at pressures not exceeding 15 psig, or a hot water boiler operating at pressures not exceeding 160 psig or temperatures not exceeding 250 °F.(d) “Hot water supply boiler” means a boiler or a lined storage water heater supplying heated water for use external to itself operating at a pressure not exceeding 160 psig or temperature not exceeding 250 °F.

If the ECat produces steam, it is a boiler. Superheated steam, doubly so. There would be no way to produce superheated steam with what we imagine of the E-cat design without there being pressure higher than 0.0 psig. If there is an open "condensate tank," there would be a pressure drop through the pipes and the load. When pressure was very low in the early E-Cats, there was only a relatively short hose to the drain pipe. (And steam flow was low, indicating that there wasn't the kind of steam expected from Rossi's calculations.) In the diagram recently imagined by Engineer48, the steam return was sparged into a condensate tank open to the air. However, the return pipe was below the water line. Thus the pressure at that pipe opening would be above 0.0 psig, in addition to the pressure caused by flow resistance through the heat dissipation system.

The E-Cat could be dangerous at 20 kW input. At a megawatt of superheated steam, as claimed, this would be phenomenally dangerous. My sense is that regulators would only allow it if told that it was limited to 20 kW, and they might believe that from the electrical hookup. I certainly would not tell them it was a "nuclear reactor!"

"Really? Someone called you and told you there was a nuclear reactor here? Well, here is our boiler, we are testing steam production. Glad you brought radiation detectors with you, you are welcome to check. What? They told you this was a low-energy nuclear reactor? Hah, hah, some people have quite a sense of humor! Wasn't that debunked long ago? There are no nuclear materials here."